The Tribunal ruled that post-notification reassessment notices must strictly follow the faceless assessment framework. Issuance by a jurisdictional AO renders the notice without authority and the reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that where reassessment is based solely on search material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C. Reopening under section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations cannot be denied merely due to technical lapses like student collection or minor PAN errors. Donor intent and consistent treatment in books were sufficient to allow exemption under section 11(1)(d).
ITAT ruled that unverified electronic records recovered from a third party do not constitute reliable evidence of cash payments. Additions based solely on such data were deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P. Such interest does not lose its character as business income of an eligible co-operative society.
The Tribunal held that receipts already offered under the presumptive scheme cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. Once income is declared under section 44AD and supported by surrounding facts, section 69A has no application.
The court examined whether disciplinary findings based on impersonation and unauthorised audits could be reopened. It upheld dismissal, holding that serious integrity breaches justified the penalty and warranted no judicial interference.
The issue involved an ex parte GST assessment raised against an unregistered contractor due to incorrect reliance on WAMIS data. The High Court quashed the demand after the State admitted confusion with another registered person of the same name.
The appellate tribunal upheld approval of a resolution plan, rejecting challenges by operational creditors. The ruling reaffirms that courts cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC if statutory requirements are met.
The High Court held that when the validity of DRI-issued show cause notices is pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal should not remand matters. The correct course is to keep appeals pending and await the apex court’s ruling.
